Subject: [ietf-dkim] section 5 rewrite?

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2006 23:32:00 +0100

Section 5 generally, 1st one is 5.1, 2nd para. This section seems to be
all, or almost all, advisory, in which case, it shouldn't use MAY,
SHOULD etc. Another example is in 5.3 where it says something that an
MUA "SHOULD" do. Suggest lower-casing all the MAY etc. Parts of 5.4
where it says that "From:" MUST be signed etc. is an exception and but
would be stated earlier, maybe in around the "h=" description.

So, is a bit of re-writing of section 5 needed?

Stephen.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 21:51:42 -0400

>So, is a bit of re-writing of section 5 needed?

Agree.

---

From: Eric Allman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 18:05:17 -0700

> Section 5 generally, 1st one is 5.1, 2nd para. This section seems
> to be all, or almost all, advisory, in which case, it shouldn't use
> MAY, SHOULD etc. Another example is in 5.3 where it says something
> that an MUA "SHOULD" do. Suggest lower-casing all the MAY etc.
> Parts of 5.4 where it says that "From:" MUST be signed etc. is an
> exception and but would be stated earlier, maybe in around the "h="
> description.
>

It depends on how extensive the changes are that you are suggesting. 
The word "re-write" implies that we should through out the current 
section and start over, to which I disagree.  I'm willing to 
lower-case some of the terms though and modify individual sentences 
and paragraphs.

I agree with 5.1, para 2, but I disagree with 5.3 --- the point of 
that is that something somehow SHOULD convert the message to 7-bit 
MIME before presentation to the DKIM algorithm in order to maximize 
interoperability.  The converting agent might be an MUA, it might be 
an MSA, it might even be the MTA, but in any case that conversion 
SHOULD be done.

eric

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 13:32:24 +0100

Eric Allman wrote:
> It depends on how extensive the changes are that you are suggesting. The 
> word "re-write" implies that we should through out the current section 
> and start over, to which I disagree.  I'm willing to lower-case some of 
> the terms though and modify individual sentences and paragraphs.

Yes, I meant mostly a lower-casing exercise, and maybe some of the
resulting non-normative text ought be moved elsewhere, to make the
normative stuff easier to get through. (Or maybe not.)

I haven't gone though it sentence by sentence but am happy to sit
down and do that with you in Montreal if it helps.

> I agree with 5.1, para 2, but I disagree with 5.3 --- the point of that 
> is that something somehow SHOULD convert the message to 7-bit MIME 
> before presentation to the DKIM algorithm in order to maximize 
> interoperability.  The converting agent might be an MUA, it might be an 
> MSA, it might even be the MTA, but in any case that conversion SHOULD be 
> done.

I guess I can buy that.

S.